My final Ricoh GX200 impressions

Late August I posted my first initial impressions of the Ricoh GX200. Being enthusiastic about the previous GX100, and the handling of the GX200 prior to my writing, I was somewhat disappointed by the quality of the GX200 RAW files. I had used the camera for a few weeks after receiving it without being able to review the photographs. When I viewed the photographs large on screen the first time I noticed I could not process the photographs the way I used and wanted to do. The editing resulted in more unintended noise, and I missed the byte. The following months I kept using the camera, changed in-camera settings, experimented with under- and overexposing, and had a relook at my image processing in Adobe Lightroom (or other applications) to improve the quality of the images.

And I can say that I have changed my initial thoughts about the GX200. I will explain how I have experimented with the camera and processing software to change my mind. Therefore I will describe a few important items that matters to me when it comes to a camera (though understand that every item is my personal opinion and the readers opinion may and can certainly differ). The three most important items are:

Camera handling

The images

And appropriate workflow

Camera handling

In my first initial impressions I described some of the improvements to the previous model, the GX100. Probably most noticeable is the larger LCD screen with more pixels. As a result the screen is much sharper and works pleasantly. It remains a bright and clear screen that is very useful at bright sunshine. The addition of the third MY setting and an extra function button are welcome new features too. With the GX100 I had assigned the AE option to the function button, but I had to use my left hand to press that button. Now I have the AE option assigned to the second function button, and I can change the most important settings with my right hand. The first function button is not assigned to ISO, so when I want to change the ISO value I can access that menu with a single button.

The shape and grip of the GX200 haven’t changed, but there was really no need to in my opinion. The camera is slightly larger than the Ricoh GR Digital II, but significantly smaller than the Canon Powershot G9 and G10. The camera really has the appearance of a serious camera with a nice black finish.

The camera comes standard with a removable lens cap. Some people, me included, do sometimes forget to remove it when switched on. Thankfully the screens displays a warning. And for those interested, Ricoh supplies a handy pizza like lens cap.

The most significant improvement of the GX200 are the writing times when shooting RAW. It is fast and nimble, and there is basically no hesitation to not shoot RAW with this camera. It now even can shoot 1:1 RAW (requested by many)! Ricoh also added flash compensation to the GX200 which works perfectly in my opinion.

I personally think that Ricoh listened really well to their Ricoh GX100 users, and last year reviewers. Many of the changes on the camera are related to the handling and were requested on many forums and in reviews. What remained is an excellent, easy, comfortable, and most definitely fast compact camera that fits within a niche market. The camera has some unique features unrivaled by its competition, like the step zoom, the three recorded settings, the clear and user-friendly LCD screen and user interface.

The imagesThe GX200 sports a different sensor than the GX100 with 2 megapixels extra. Since Ricoh doesn’t develop their own sensor they have to buy what the markets offers/forces them. As a result of the new sensor Ricoh updated the GX200 image processing engine.

The new sensor resulted in some different features like a lowest ISO of 64 instead of ISO 80 with the GX100. They increased the amounts of possible in-camera settings with more B&W settings (just like the Ricoh GR Digital 2), and there is a new feature to compensate the white balance.

Even with the noise reduction off there is still some noise reduction applied on the in-camera jpegs, even at the lowest ISO. For the pixel peeper this might be a problem, but for those who actually print their work I personally see no problems. But if you don’t like any noise reduction, or you want to do your own noise reduction, it helps to shoot in RAW. And that brings me to the RAW files.

With the GX100 I intentionally underexposed slightly to retain enough information in the highlights, and because the camera had a tendency to overexpose to retain information in the shadows. Photographs had a nice and fine noise, even so after post processing that could increase the noise. With the GX200 RAW files I noticed more noise in the blue channel that restricted my post processing possibilities. As a result, I looked at how I could improve the image quality of the RAW files, prior before shooting and in the post processing. I will explain more about the post processing in the last segment, ‘the appropriate workflow’. But how to get better quality of files from a camera with a small sensor and a limited dynamic range?

More than with a dSLR you have to make choices when you expose for a scene. When you underexpose you will likely get more information in the highlights, but you will also get darker shadows. I personally don’t mind darker shadows, but unfortunately underexposing will also result in darker mid grays. In post processing this can (and I noticed often will) lead to more blotchy noise in your images. I noticed that when you don’t compensate your metering, or even slightly overexpose, at daytime or with a bright light you will get more detailed RAW files. This works really well at ISO 200 and even ISO 400. And with some luck, when you nail your exposure right, you will get pretty decent ISO 800 photographs too. The most important part is to expose your subject right, even when that will give some blown highlights at other parts of your photograph.

Use the LCD screen or viewfinder to frame, and use the live histogram to expose properly. The histogram is so much more accurate than the LCD screen. The metering system is pretty accurate, and the white balance works quite well (although for my B&W photography I am personally less interested in the accuracy of the white balance).

While I had some difficulties with the RAW files at first I start to like the look of the GX200 RAW files. I just took some extra time. The reason I start to like it has to do with the last segment. I have already made large A2-sized prints and they look sweet. The noise that might be a problem for you on screen will mostly be gone when printed (or give a pleasant texture).

But how are the jpegs? In my opinion these are very useful. Sharpness at +2 will give you some sharpening artifacts. Like said before, there will always be some sort of noise reduction, even when you switched the in-camera noise reduction off. But I think it doesn’t harm the photograph. Of course for those who prefer to view their photographs at 100% magnification it will be. But those who actually view them normally or even print them will have no problems in my opinion.

Appropriate workflowThe success of a digital camera is probably most determined by someone’s workflow. And that workflow consists of the camera handling, photography making, and editing. A well handling camera is more likely to be picked up by a photographer, even when the camera won’t give you the best results (this matters especially for amateur photographers). The photography making has all to do with how well the camera exposes, your personal skills, and learning the limitations and possibilities of your camera. And for the editing you try to find the application that works the best for you, and achieves the best possible results you envision.

I for instance use Adobe Lightroom as my primary editing application. When I want to do more with editing like burning and dodging, I edit the photographs in Photoshop. I have tried several other application like Silkypix, RAW Developer (Mac only), LightZone, and Capture One for editing my RAW files, but I still prefer the user interface and results of Lightroom. Some applications might give you better end results, but are not necessarily the most user-friendly applications.

When I first opened my GX200 RAW files in Lightroom I had some problems with my favorite B&W conversion technique. This was mostly the result of more noise in the blue channel. But also underexposing affected the RAW files more than the GX100 RAW files (because of the different sensor and processing engine).
Instead of using the luminance sliders to brighten or darken particular colors in Lightroom, I started to experiment with the exposure, black point, and brightness slider to give a pleasant contrast that didn’t give more noise. Especially RAW files that were exposed with the most information captured in the brightest section were so much better to be edited.

Another application (or better said plug-in) that is pleasant to use, is Nik Silver Efex Pro in Photoshop (can also be used in Apple Aperture, but that is Mac only). Edit the RAW file basically in auto mode with ACR and then use Silver Efex Pro. It is absolutely a stunning piece of software that delivers great looking results.

ConclusionFor whom is the Ricoh GX200 intended? The GX200 is intended as a versatile, but serious high-end compact camera with serious photography in mind. It enables photographers to shoot a wide range of scenes including landscapes, portraits and close-ups. If you know a thing or two about photography you will probably like this camera. It is a great travel camera, or a second ‘where-ever-you-go’ camera next to your larger camera system.

Nevertheless Ricoh has little presence in some of the largest consumer markets, like the US and Canada. They are very popular in Japan, and they have a pretty loyal fan base worldwide. For long it seemed photographers, manufacturers (and reviewers) didn’t notice Ricoh, despite the fact that the GX100 and the current GX200 have some very unique features. I mention the 24mm wide angle, the step zoom, the three registered personal settings, the additional DW-6 wide angle and TC-1 teleconversion lens, and the VF-1 electronic viewfinder (although I don’t use that). Most consumers looked at the Canon Powershot G9, the Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX2/Leica D-Lux 3, or the Nikon P5000.

Panasonic/Leica are the first manufacturers who looked at the GX200 and tried to improve their top compact cameras. The market reacted enthusiastic and basically said that the new Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX3/Leica D-Lux4 are one of a kind cameras with a very fast 24-60mm lens, and extra accessories. But when you take the domestic market of Japan, it becomes obvious that the LX3 is directly targeted against the GX200. And it is likely that Ricoh will respond adequately with a GX300, as they acknowledged to me at photokina. They will remain fully committed to further improving their GX (and GRD) cameras, especially the image quality.

And is the Ricoh GX200 a suitable camera for you? If you own the GX100 and you are pleased with that camera, I might say that an upgrade isn’t really necessary. When you still own the older GX or GX8, than the GX200 will be a major improvement. If you want a fast responsive, and versatile camera capable of shooting RAW, than I can really recommend this camera. It is excellent competition for the Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX3 and the Leica D-Lux4. The Panasonic/Leica combo have the edge in their fast lens with a maximum aperture of f2.0, but that lens does seem to suffer from more barrel distortion and chromatic aberration. Currently you can only use Silkypix (for the Panasonic) and Capture One (for the Leica) to process their RAW files since both manufacturers worked closely with the developers of these RAW processors to automatically adjust some of the lens flaws. I am not being fair though, because also RAW Developer (though Mac only), RAW Therapee (beta) and dcraw can open and process the RAW files from Panasonic and Leica. But these applications don’t apply any correction.

The GX200 DNG RAW files on the other hand can likely be opened and processed in your favorite editing application, ranging from the Adobe Photoshop family, Apple iPhoto and Aperture, and the mentioned RAW processors above, and many more. That way you can easily integrate this camera in your current workflow.

The Ricoh GX100 has some caveats. Some owners, including me, had problems with dust in the lens or on the sensor. The lens assembly and sensor are produced as a single unit, and therefore Ricoh will always replace the lens assembly when dust problems occurred. Although Ricoh at first hesitated acknowledging this problem with the GX100, they were aware that either the rather unprotected battery compartment or the telescopic retraction system of the lens could be faults for this problem. Also some owners had problems with a stucked lens on the GX100 and had to remove the battery completely in order to make the camera functional again. In the last three months I personally had no problems with the GX200, and also haven’t seen any mentioning of problems with the GX200 on forums. I really think that the GX200 is a much more reliable camera and they pushed the limits of what is possible with a small sensor camera.

More than with any other small sensor camera, you might have noticed that many Ricoh owners prefer to use their camera primarily for B&W photography. Search for instance on flickr, or see the numerous forums with Ricoh topics. The nice thing about the Ricoh GX200 is that you can set the in-camera settings to B&W, see your scene in B&W on the screen, and still save an unedited RAW file. In particular the fine noise structure of the RAW files gives a pleasant texture to the B&W photographs from the GX200.

I should say that this camera performances best up to ISO 400. If that is perfectly fine for you, and you still want a zoom lens with a little, but very usable zoom range (although I personally never use the 50 and 72mm focal lengths), than this camera can be a strong contender against the new Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX3 and Leica D-Lux 4. Where the image quality probably will be better from the LX3 and D-Lux 4, especially at higher ISO’s, the GX200 will absolutely be the better handling camera. The grip and user interface are unrivaled by any other manufacturer.

And if you want to learn about this camera and the decision making continue here.

57 thoughts on “My final Ricoh GX200 impressions”

Really a useful review. I´m glad you like the GX200 more now! Once more it is confirmed that all this gadget-hype around us may be entertaining, but getting a new camera every few months probably won´t pay anyway, as you first have to learn to use it (whatever brand it may be). This is one thing that I see as well for the GRD2 that I have been using for some months now. There are still many things I have to learn, but the camera is really great!

Timely post. I have the GX100 and I’ve been considering moving to the GX200, mostly for the improved RAW buffer, but for other things as well. Just not sure yet. Thank you for your impressions! The Ricohs are simply great all-around cameras.

I wonder if Lightroom works really well with the GX200 RAW files because they are Adobe’s DNG standard?

Thank you all. The larger RAW buffer is certainly a major improvement of the GX100. I personally would suggest you, Andrew, to stick to the GX100. Save the money, and buy the GX300 in the fall next year.

Adobe ACR (that converts the RAW files for Photoshop and Lightroom) works well in my opinion, but so do LightZone, Capture One for instance. I choosed Lightroom, because I like the workflow and the results even though I think some other RAW converters can deliver better results.

You seem to have had the same problems like me with processing RAW files from Ricoh’s new processing engine. I have exactly the same findings like you as to overexposing slightly and not underexposing pictures from the GRD II.

I think this sums it up best about Ricoh cameras and why it’s difficult to even consider using other cameras after owning a Ricoh: “The grip and user interface are unrivaled by any other manufacturer.”

Very helpful review. Although I am still in love with traditional film and rangefinder cameras, I have been scouting a compact digital after owning two that I didn’t particularly like. The GX200 sounds like the camera I’ve been looking for, but I wonder, have you had a chance to compare it to the Canon G10? I am in a quandary over these two cameras. Which do you prefer, and why?

Thanks again for a great review!

(BTW, I live and work in Japan, and you’re right about Ricoh’s presence here. Much more popular and well-known than in my home, Canada)

I am a professional photographer in NYC, and I have enjoyed your work for a couple of years, by now. I would love to see what you’d come up with using the Canon G10, and hear your impressions of the post-processing, for the sake of comparison. I have a GX100, am hesitant about purchasing the GX-200 with a 300 looming, and have been considering the G10. Lets face it, at this point waiting five seconds between shots is really unnecessary.

Wouter, this is a very well written, informative piece and I appreciate that you took the time to bring us up-to-date. As a matter of fact, using the information you detailed, I was able to give the highest recommendation of the GX200 to a street photographer I know here in Philly. He was leaning towards it, but I tipped him over the edge to Ricoh two hours after reading your post!🙂 You also pushed me over the edge to finally purchase the Nik software. I’m going to seriously look at the GX300, when it is finally developed. I love my GR, but the lens adapter drives me crazy sometimes.

The selected images are inspirational to the point you making. Great post!

I’m very curious to see what Ricoh has coming up. I see a lot potential in their future cameras. But, it will seem like a long wait for that GX300. But that’s an interesting point, coming from the GX100 to GX300. In this day and time with the relatively incremental improvements from one camera model generation to the next perhaps it’s the best policy to upgrade every other generation. This is cost effective and gives us time to learn the camera and grow into it, then be best able to take advantage of the second next model after our current one. Or something like that ; )

@Cristi: Ricoh absolutely play a different game and I hope they keep doing that.

@Singlemalt: I have only had the G10 in my hand at photokina. It looks like a serious camera, and probably most people will look for this camera instead of a Ricoh. The Canon is absolutely heavier and larger. I would love to try the G10 though.

@warmdriver: When speed matters to you then I would really suggest you go for the GX200. When you use Canon dSLR’s, and DPP for your RAW processing, the G10 could fit easily in your workflow. The Ricoh remains versatile because you get DNG RAW files, and the user interface is in a different league.

@James: That is fantastic! Go Philly! And I am looking forward to your results with Silver Efex Pro.

@Andrew: Ricoh gives the GX cameras something like 1.5 year life span, before they release a newer model. The GX200 was released on July 4, so the GX300 can be expected in December 2009. Maybe September 2009 they will release the GRD3, so we get a clue of the direction they are heading. So when you are happy with the performance of the GX100, I really suggest you save money for the GX300 next year.

Thanks for this well written review of the GX200. I am looking forward to next year to see if Ricoh is launching a camera with a bigger sensor. The current GX200 beats any other digital compact currently on the market in terms of handling.

Congrats Zander with the purchase of the GX200. As you already mentioned, you can’t compare the GX200 with your 5D. The noiselevels are completely different, but should be expected when you compare the sensorsize of both cameras.

Photographing with a small sensor camera is all about making choices. Highlight details, but more noise in the darker parts. More details in the shadows, but blown highlights. Nowadays I mostly use the camera in manual mode and try to expose as careful as possible. I try to avoid unexposing as much as possible unless intended by me.

I mostly shoot ISO 100, even at night. You can handheld the camera really well. It is light and there is no slapping mirror. And in difficult lightning I use my hand for metering.

And remember that small sensor cameras give huge depth of field. There is no need to go smaller than f5.6 with the GX200. It works so well wide open and you can still get huge depth of field.

Agreed that it would be fine for a GW100 user to wait for the GX300 before making a new acquisition.

For those who need speed and RAW, then on that alone, the 200 would be a valuable asset.

Without casting any doubt on the quality of a Canon nor a Leica, in this Compact Pro/Sumer range, the one über-major advantage of the Ricoh offering is the add-on swivel electronic range-finder. Just imagine, no paralex error. I’ve found this indispensibe on many an occasion.

What else: light weight but heavy lifter; intuitive and efficient interface, and so on…

I just want to say, something to all the people who sit around doing ISO test on these cameras and posting there bogus results cropped at 100% magnification.

These test are absurd, they do not show the true signal to noise ratio.

If you want to do a true (helpful) ISO test…get outside and take shots of real/everyday situations. People who are looking/reading your posts are in need of practical info not some studio shots and bar graphs. No one in there right mind is going to use a compact (however serious is may be) in a studio with controlled lighting…

It was brave from you to try it, but I think you won’t like the Leica D-Lux4 either. I think you are so much used to your 5D files that anything beneath it will be too noisy for your taste. There is no such thing as clean files from a small sensor camera, period.

I am a professional photographer in Copenhagen, and I like your site and pictures a lot, I do have a GX100 fine for me so far, in the beginning I didnt like it, but I am getting used to it a nice I bring it everywhere I go.
Keep up the good work and the nice site!!!!!!

Thank you so much for visiting my site and enjoying my photographs. I enjoyed your photographs too, in particular the B&W Morocco photo is superb.

These cameras are great for informal photography during a shooting. Small and easy to use. But the difference between the GX100 and GX200 is amazing in terms of image quality. The GX100 remains the better camera. More usefull jpegs (less noise reductions) and better RAW files (with less noise in the blue channel).

Great Review. That photo at the top caught my attention and made me want to read the whole thing. It was interesting to read about Silver Eflex, I haven’t heard of it but know now that I will be using it alot (it seems amazing). If I hadn’t bought a Canon G10 before reading this I would probably have gotten the Ricoh.

I use Lightroom quite a bit, and I think I will (as you recommended) go back and play with exposure, black point, and brightness instead of my usual luminance and exposure.

Although the G10 and the GX200 are both in the same competition, they are both like totally different cameras. Where the G10 seems to scream to be a photographic experience (with all those old-skool dials on top), it is the Ricoh camera that handles unlike anything else.

There are so many ways to edit your photographs in Lightroom. Do what you like best, and what works best with the photographs from your camera. I personally really like the luminance thing (and almost never touched the exposure slider), but on the GX200 RAW photos it was not the best thing to do.

I have owned once GRD II, have some experience over it and regretly sold it. I found that Ricoh is very unique and travel friendly and I have never experience any compacts near it. After reading your review, will go straight away to buy one with kits.
Thanks for the review and make up my mind

Thank you very much for your great review and awesome pictures with GX200. First of all, I was really impressed your nice b&w pictures on the page. I like your taking picture, especially first one on the page anyhow.

I finally make decision to buy the camera from your review. Although I’m a heavy user of point and shooting camera since 1996, I know Ricoh has always produced very unique and professional functional models.
In the film era, I’ve always used SLR cameras like Canon and Minolta. However, I’m not in mood to use current digital SLRs so far. In my personal view, current digital SLRs are remodeling with film SLR basically. Of course, I have to admit that there are so many functions, possibilities and advance technological matters in digital. Above all, so many state-of-the-art things are packed in a small body, not any big one like SLR cameras. I’m surprised at this fact still now. That’s why I keep on choosing and focusing on point and shoot cameras. I usually take B&W pictures now and it’s fact that your B&W images are moved me a lot. At least I’ve felt like using this camera from your review with big thanks. Camera always has to always be in my hand whenever I want to take. Ricoh GX200 will be my 12th P&S camera.

Hi, Wouter.
Thank you for your comment.
I will upload pictures I’ve taken with GX200 as “a moment in my life” later.
So, you can visit there and see some pictures there. I also look forward to your new report, pictures and colums here from now.
Have a nice day!

You mentioned there may be possibility of GX-300 releasing in December this year. I am actually now selling my P6000 to fund for the GX-200 because I love the handling (I just bought GRD II) but if the possibility is high, should I just hold on and wait for GX-300 to be released? However, that is almost 5-6 months’ wait…

Hi. I just bought this camera a few weeks ago:) i’ve tried reading the user guide, but i couldn’t understand what is ISO, F2.5 ect, AE/AF, and howw to make picture blur at the back of the picture? and i can’t notice the difference between M,P,A, etc..

Hi Wouter, I was torn between getting a GX-200 and GXR after it was announced. I had previously emailed you for your opinion and after reading through this article again, I bought the GX-200. Though it may not have the latest features from both GRD III and GXR and its IQ is not on par with GX-100/GRD, I am really fond of its handling and improved RAW buffer over the GX-100.

Congrats with your GX200 Randius. I leave the image stabilization off, because it didn’t yield better results at low shutter speeds to me and I was very annoyed by the noise of the image stabilization.

Either a GX100 or a GX200 is still a pretty good choice. The GX100 is slightly slower (in particular raw), so in terms of speed the GX200 might seem more logical when you want to compare it with your dslr.

When you mostly shoot raw go for the GX200. In my opinion the GX100 is better for jpeg which reminded me more from Olympus out-of-camera jpegs.

I personally considered the image quality of the GX100 better than the GX200. Different processor and image engine. Next to these Ricoh’s you might also want to look at the current Panasonic LX5 or the older LX3. Very well constructed and a good lens. In terms of image quality it is better at high ISO’s.

Well Paul, 2012 and the GX200. Even for 2012 it is a very intuitive camera, hardly found on the market in my opinion. In terms of image quality and sensor technology it isn’t quite up to current state of the art cameras. Regarding small sensor cameras the LX5 and the Oly XZ-1 are probably better cameras, and so is the Fuji X10 (despite the white orbs).

I owned a gx200 in 2009 and replaced it by a grdIII and added a gxr in 2012. A few weeks ago I bought a samsung ex1, which produced nice pictures of a high quality – but the handling was less pleasent. So I decided to buy a used gx 200 this week. Comparing the image quality, especially of the prints (up to A3+) with contemporary pictures, shows that the gx200 still can compete – in my opinion.